Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Kodashim · 509 sections

4.3.3
החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה – and it is from the Rabbis, as a decree lest the fetus bring forth its head outside the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he is like he was born and defiles and the midwife thinks that it (i.e., the fetus) is still in her womb and comes to be pure. But the shepherd who inserted his hand into the womb of the animal, as it is taught in our Mishnah is pure. We don’t make this decree, because the womb of the animal is revealed, and when it (i.e., the fetus) comes out, he sees it.
4.3.4
ואשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד – for the woman creates excitement for herself when it (i.e., the fetus) brings forth its head outside of the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he does not come to be purified (see Talmud Hullin 72a).
4.4.1
הבשר טהור – the flesh–meat of the fetus is pure, for the animal does not receive impurity while living.
4.4.2
הבשר מגע נבילה – the flesh–meat of the fetus touched a limb from a living animal, which defiles like carrion.
4.4.3
מגע טריפה שחוטה – for the ritual slaughter, even though it does not permit the limb for consumption, purifies it from being carrion, and it is like something torn that is ritually slaughtered that does not defile from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis with those things that are sanctified [for the Temple]: This is our reading.
4.4.4
אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את העבר – and we don’t have the reading “of the fetus.”
4.4.5
לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה – this is according to the law, for it is a thing that is part of its body.
4.4.6
ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה – for perhaps it does not purify it, and from the law, does not purify it, for an unclean–impure animal is prohibited for consumption and a torn animal is forbidden for consumption.
4.4.7
ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה – from being impure, for this is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus – see Leviticus 11:26,24: “among all the animals...that has true hoofs….whoever touches their carcasses shall be impure until evening” – all who touch them shall be impure, to include an unclean animal that its slaughter will not purify it.
4.4.8
תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר – for since it takes effect the law of ritual slaughtering, furthermore, it does not escape from it for it is within the general realm of the rest of sheep and cattle.
4.4.9
טול לך מה שהבאת – take from here this proof that you brought.
4.4.10
הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין – that it would make it pure.
4.4.11
שיש במינה שחיטה – therefore, it does not escape from the generalization of sheep and cattle. But a living animal [fetus] that is eight [months] old that was born from a living animal, we don’t have with what to purify it even it is slaughtered, because it is not included with cattle and sheep. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
4.4.12
אין שחיטתה מטהרתו – from being carrion, for the ritual slaughter of an eight [month] fetus is of any benefit, but rather, when it is in the womb of its mother, it is permitted through the slaughter of its mother (as we will learn in the next Mishnah).
4.5.1
ומוציא את דמו – and its fat alone is permitted, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus), when it states, the fat and the two kidneys with a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 7:4: “the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins”), and we don’t need to say that from an a fortiori we would derive it, for just as regarding an offering of well-being–peace offering that anything of their species requires the fat-tail, for they require the fat and two kidneys. The guilt offering, that all of its species requires the tail, is it not the law that it requires the fat and the two kidneys? And what does the inference teach us, but rather to tell us that just as fat and the two kidneys that are stated with the guilt offering is removed from the general category of the embryo, for you are not able to state that the fat of the embryo that is found in a guilt offering should be offered with a female animal, even all, even the sacrifices that come from a female, the fat that is mentioned regarding them one removes from the category of the embryo. But since the fat of the embryo is not offered with all the sacrifices, it is permitted for consumption. But its blood is not worse than the blood of the limbs and we hold that in the Tractate Keritot that the blood of the limbs one violates a negative commandment.
4.5.2
טעון שחיטה – for newborns indirectly to compare an animal by itself, and to nt to be included–to be derived by implication with all the cattle that you may eat.
4.5.3
וחייב באותו את בנו – that you should not slaughter it on the date that you ritually slaughter its mother.
4.5.4
וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו – that the newly born and giving birth is the cause of it.
4.5.5
ר' שמעון שזורי כו' – to the words of the Sages, since that it (i.e., the animal) walked on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter according to the Rabbis. For one might exchange it in order to eat an animal without ritual slaughter. Burt Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits even after he it had a parted hoof on the
4.5.6
קרעה – [cut into] the animal without ritual slaughter.
4.6.1
בהמה שנתחכו – the hind–back [legs].
4.6.2
מן הארכובה ולמטה – there are three bones in the thigh. The lowest is the bone that is cut with the split hoofs when they flay the animal and this joint is called the knee that is sold with the head, and in the foreign tongue, we call that limb–joint YEENOKLAV, and in Arabic DUKBA. And above it there is the middle bone and the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh (see Talmud Hullin 76a) underneath it adjacent to the limb–joint of the knee that is sold with the head. And the uppermost is the thigh-bone which is inserted in the tail. And the joint which is between the end of the thigh-bone to the top of the middle bone is known and seen in a camel when it lies down more than the rest of the living creatures. And from the knee and below as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is kosher, which is from the beginning of the knee that is sold with the head and below. But from the knee and upward, which is from the end of the middle bone, which is the place of bunch of converging sinews in the thigh, in every place where the foot is cut, from there and above is “torn” (not kosher).
4.6.3
וכן שניטל צומת הגידין (if the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed – even if the foot was not cut off that the bone was not broken but the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh were removed, it is invalid–”torn.” So explained some of the Amoraim of the Mishnah in the Gemara (Talmud Hullin 76a-b). But this approach my teachers–Rabbis took hold of as essential and taught that in every place where the leg was cut off above from lower knee which they call Y’NUKLAV in the foreign tongue, whether in the place where the bunch of converging sinews or whether above from the bunch of converging sinews, it is [considered] “torn” (unfit, not kosher). But Maimonides and Rabbi Alfasi his teacher took hold as essential a different commentary–explanation – that from the knee and below is kosher and from the knee and above is unfit, for this is what he said: below from the upper knee which is the thigh-bone that is inserted in the tail, but not below immediately adjacent to it, but rather, below from the middle bone entirely, which is the lower bone, is definitely kosher. Above from the knee, which is the thigh-bone, is definitely “torn” (i.e., unfit, not kosher) in every place that he cut off. And similarly, if he removed the bunch of converging sinews, meaning to say, that in the middle bone, there is a place that is “torn” such as the bunch of converging sinews, and there is a place which is kosher, such as above from the bunch of converging sinew. But don’t be astonished how if he severed it above from the bunch on the middle bone, it is kosher, but when he lowers to cut the bunch, it is “torn,” that we can’t say that this torn part is similar to that one, for if one cuts from here and the animal dies, one cuts from there and the animal lives. And this animal is not forbidden because its leg was severed from this place, but rather because the bunch of sinews were cut, for their severing is within the general [definition] of those things that are torn. And the place of the bunch of the converging sinews begins from the place where they appear hard and white until the place that they begin to soften and redden.
4.6.4
וצומת הגידין – they are three white sinews in the animal that meet and are connected together. One of them is thick and the [other] two are thin. If the thick one alone is removed, this is not the removal of the bunch of converging sinews, for two of them remain. But if the two think wones are removed from their place, it is permitted, for the one that is thick and larger than the other two, for the entire bunch of converging sinews were not removed, only a minority of them. But if most of each of them were severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher). And one does not need to state if all of them were severed or if all of them were removed. And with fowl, they are sixteen white sinews, even if only the majority of one of them was severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher).
4.6.5
נשבר העצם – below from the knee in the place where it doesn’t make it “torn” (i.e., not kosher).
4.6.6
‘אם רוב הבשר קיים – which is the hide and flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference of the break. For sometimes it is found this without that, such as when it widens from one side and is narrow from the other side, for the bone is not round. Therefore, it requires both.
4.6.7
שחיטתו מטהרתו – to the limb hanging down from the body, and it is permitted, even for consumption.
4.6.8
ואם לאו – that the hide and the flesh do not cover the majority, the slaughtering does not render it clean. But even though the animal is permitted, the limb is forbidden because of (Exodus 22:30): “you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs],” as we state (Tractate Hullin 73a), to include the limb and flesh hanging down from the body. But if the bone is broken form the knee and above to the place where it makes it “torn,” if most of the flesh exists, the limb and the animal are permitted. But if not, the limb and the animal are prohibited. And the law of the fowl is like the law of the animals of the field for this matter.
4.7.1
שליא (placenta–after-birth) – a jind of pocket where the fetus is placed into it.
4.7.2
נפש היפה – for it is not counted on in his mind (and therefore forbidden to handle) on account of its repulsiveness.
4.7.3
תאכלנה – but we don’t say that it is the limb from a living animal (i.e., one of the seven Noahide commandments), but also is a remnant from the ritual slaughtering of the mother [animal].
4.7.4
ואינה מטמאה – as it is not considered food.
4.7.5
ולא טומאת נבילות – if the animal died.
4.7.6
מטמאה טומאת אוכלין (if he gave thought to it – for use as food) – of it came in contact with defilement, that his thought considers it as food. But not the uncleanness of carrion, for it is not meat but rather, merely like the rest of food in general.
4.7.7
אסורה באכילה – and even though only a small part of it (i..e, the placenta–after-birth) came out, and it is obvious that all that all of the cleansing of the fetus was not there, we are concerned perhaps that with that particular piece, the head of the offspring came out and that is considered like it is born.
4.7.8
[הכי גרסינן] סימן ולד באשה. וסימן ולד בבהמה: המבכרת – this is her first issue of her womb.
4.7.9
ישליכנה לכלבים – for there is no sanctity in it. For even though there is no placenta–after-birth without a offspring, here, the majority is not sanctified, for perhaps it was a female, or it was an animal suspected of looking like one (i.e., a lamb looking like a kid and vice-versa – or a hybrid), and it is not holy (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter).
4.7.10
ובמוקדשין – as, for example, the cattle of peace-offering–well-being which expelled the after-birth–placenta.
4.7.11
תקבר – for since there is no after-birth–placenta without offspring, it is sanctified, for whether a male or a female that left from the animal that was sanctified to the Temple is holy.
4.7.12
בפרשת דרכים – a place where the paths separate into two. And the path of diviners to bury her there in order that she will not abort anymore.
4.7.13
דרכי האמורי – sorcery, as it is written (Exodus 23:24}: “[you shall not bow down to the gods in worship] or follow their practices.”
5.1.1
אותו ואת בנו – the mother and the male offspring, or the mother and the female offspring, but the father with the male offspring or with the female offspring is not forbidden [to be slaughtered on the same day], for (Leviticus 22:28): “[However, no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered] on the same day with its young,” implies whomever’s offspring is clinging, excluding the male (i.e., the father) whose male offspring is not clinging.
5.1.2
בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ –since it is necessary to teach, whether with unconsecrated things whether with consecrated things, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches also “whether in the Land of Israel” or “whether outside the Land of Israel,” even though it is not necessary, for it is the obligation of personal duty (as opposed to laws connected with the soil of the Land of Israel), for personal duty applies whether in the Land of Israel or whether outside the Land of Israel.
5.1.3
בפני הבית – at the time when the Temple exists.
5.1.4
ושלא בפני הבית – you might think I would say, for since it is written regarding the matter of Holy Things, that when the Temple exists, we will apply it, when the Temple doesn’t exist, we will not apply it. Therefore, it comes to tell us the opposite.
5.1.5
בחולין ובמוקדשים – whether both (i.e., the mother and the offspring) are unconsecrated or both are sanctified, and from where in the Torah do we learn that it applies to that which is sanctified? As it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born,[it shall stay seven days with its mother, and from the eight day on] it shall be acceptable as a gift to the LORD,” and afterwards it is written (Leviticus 22:28): “However no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.”
5.1.6
בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.
5.1.7
שניהם כשרים – because it was necessary to teach in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that both of them are disqualified, the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches that both are fit.
5.1.8
והשני סופג את הארבעים – because of the negative commandment of “no animal…[shall be slaughtered on the same day] with its young” (Leviticus 22:28). And there is no difference whether he slaughtered the mother first, and makes no difference whether he slaughtered the offspring first. It makes no difference whether both were slaughtered by one person, and makes no difference if two people [slaughtered the mother and its young].
5.1.9
הראשון חייב כרת – because of slaughtering outside of the Temple. But the second [of the pair of the mother and its offspring] is exempt from extirpation, for since the mother was slaughtered, the offspring is further not worthy to be slaughtered today inside, for it is disqualified because of lacking time (i.e., an offering cannot be offered because its time to be offered has not yet arrived), for it is not appropriate to slaughter it and to offer it today, and he is not liable because of slaughtering outside [the Temple] unless it is appropriate inside, as it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that which is appropriate [to be brought] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, he is liable for it outside, and if not, then not.
5.1.10
ושניהם סופגים את הארבעים – the first because of slaughtering outside, for all who are liable for violating laws of extirpation are flogged, and the second because of the negative commandment of “the mother and its young.”
5.1.11
חולין בפנים שנהים פסולין – because unconsecrated offerings which were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.
5.1.12
והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.” But because of unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, there is the warning of a positive commandment (Deuteronomy 12:21): “If the place [where there LORD has chosen to establish His name] is too far from you, you may slaughter [any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you],” when there is a distance of place, you slaughter, but you do not slaughter when the place is close.
5.1.13
קדשים בפנים כו' והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.”
5.1.14
ופסול – because of lacking time.
5.2.1
חולין וקדשים בחוץ – specifically it [i.e., the Mishnah] took the first as unconsecrated produce and the second as Holy Things (i.e., belonging to the Temple). And similarly, all that is taught in the Mishnah, specifically it took them.
5.2.2
והשני סופג – because of (Leviticus 22:28): “an animal…with its young.”
5.2.3
קדשים – at first, and afterwards, unconsecrated produce outside.
5.2.4
והשני כשר – for consumption. But since it (i.e., the Mishnah) taught it was invalid, it taught, it was fit.
5.2.5
ושניהם סופגים – the first because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], and the second because of “an animal with its young” (Leviticus 22:28)
5.2.6
חולין וקדשים בפנים שניהם פסולים – the first because of unconsecrated animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and the second because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived).
5.2.7
והשני סופג – because of “an animal with its young.”
5.2.8
חולין בחוץ ובפנים – the first slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard] and the second within [the Temple courtyard].
5.2.9
קדשים בחוץ ובפנים הראשון בכרת – because of slaughtering outside[the Temple courtyard].
5.2.10
ושניהם פסולים – the first because it was slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard] and the second because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived).
5.2.11
ושניהם סופגים – the first because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], and the second because of “an animal with its young.”
5.2.12
קדשים בפנים ובחוץ – for the second, one receives [forty – actually, thirty nine] lashes] because of “an animal with its young,” but because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], one is not flogged, for because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived, and he it is not accepted inside [the Temple courtyard].
5.3.1
פרה חטאת – the red heifer, which is not for consumption.
5.3.2
ושור הנסקל – after its verdict has been announced, for we hold hat it is prohibited to derive benefit even when slaughtering it.
5.3.3
ועגלה ערופה – for he holds that it is forbidden while alive, and even if e slaughtered it, it is forbidden. But in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 82a) reaches the definitive conclusion that the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is to be broken are not taught in our Mishnah. For regarding both of them, their slaughter is appropriate, and one must remove them from the Mishnah and Rabbi Shimon did not exempt them (for slaughter that is not appropriate for eating is not called slaughter).
5.3.4
וחכמים מחייבין – this that the Sages make him liable when slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, they did not teach other than when he slaughtered the first for idolatrous purposes and the second [animal] came and he slaughtered it for his table to eat it, but if the first was for his table and the second was for idolatrous purposes, that through the latter slaughtering is what makes him liable because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), the law of killing comes upon him, and he is exempt from lashes–flogging because he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer penalty which is death (i.e., for slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, but he is exempt from flogging for the slaughtering of the animal and her young in one day – see Talmud Hullin 81b) for two [punishments] we don’t do to him. But sometimes, that even when he slaughtered the first for his table and the second for idolatrous purposes, he is liable, as, for example, when they (i.e., witnesses) warned him because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), but they didn’t warn him because of idolatrous purposes, for since they did not warn him regarding idolatrous purposes, he is not killed, but he is flogged because of “an animal and its young.” But the Halakha is according to the Sages.
5.3.5
ונתנבלה בידו – inadvertently–unknowingly.
5.3.6
והנוחר – inserting the knife in its nostrils and cuts [the windpipe].
5.3.7
והמעקר – tearing loose the windpipe and gullet from the place where they are attached and he doesn’t slaughter them.
5.3.8
פטור – and even according to the Rabbis. But it is not similar to ritual slaughter of above, for there, it is an appropriate ritual slaughter, and another things causes it to be invalidated, but here, there isn’t ritual slaughter at all.
5.3.9
איזה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון – if they came to the Jewish court, he who came first to slaughter and his fellow detains him and says: “I need it more than you,” we say to them, that the first purchaser should סperson and he detained for himself, the [original] purchaser would slaughter it. For such we taught in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 5), that he who purposes it from the owner, he precedes the owner, for on that account, he purchased it.
5.3.10
ואם קדם השני זכה – that he advanced himself in order that he not come to a prohibition, and he has the interval that he eats meat today.
5.3.11
סופג שמונים – for on every male offspring that he slaughters, he transgresses a negative commandment.
5.3.12
סופג את ארבעים – for there isn’t here a forbidden slaughtering other than one.
5.3.13
שחטה ואת בתה ואח"כ את בת בתה – there are two [violations] of “an animal and its young.”
5.3.14
שחטה ואת בת בתה – there is [not] yet here a prohibition. ואח"כ שחט את בתה – and there is in this slaughtering two prohibitions, “an animal and its young” because of its mother,” and an offspring and it because of its female offspring of that which has already been slaughtered.
5.3.15
סופג ארבעים – it is one negative commandment ‘violated] and one warning and one deed.
5.3.16
סומכוס אומר סופג שמונים – for Sumachos holds that he is liable for one warning and with one negative commandment, two [punishments of] stripes. And the same law applies with the first clause [of the Mishnah] which teaches that if he slaughtered its two offspring and afterwards slaughtered her (i.e., the mother), he receives forty (actually thirty-nine) lashes. According to Sumachos, he receives eighty lashes. Such it is in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 7), if he slaughters her five offspring and afterwards slaughter it (i.e., the mother), Sumachos states in the name of Rabbi Meir that he is liable because of [the violation] of five negative commandments.
5.3.17
בארבעה פרים בשנה – it is the manner of Israel to make meals on these four seasons [of the year], for a person who simply purchases an animal does not purchase it other than to slaughter it immediately, therefore, a person who sells an animal to his fellow and he sells first its mother or its female offspring on that selfsame day, he must state to the second [person]: “Know for yourself that I sold its mother for slaughter” or “I sold its female offspring for slaughter” lest it was already slaughtered.
5.3.18
ביום טוב האחרון של חג – they would increase in joy because it is a festival of its own and was beloved to them. And this did not consider the eve of the first day of the Festival, because the entire world is preoccupied with [the building of] the Sukkah and [acquiring] a Lulav [and Etrog], and they don’t have free time to make a large slaughtering.
5.3.19
אף ערבי יום הכיפורים בגלילי – but not in Judea and not in the rest of the lands, for they would not eat on the Eve of Yom Kippur anything other than meat, children and–or fish as is proven in Bereshit Rabbah, regarding a particular tailor who sold a fish.
5.3.20
בזמן שאין לו ריוח – interruption between them, that he sold the mother [animal] today.
5.3.21
אבל יש לו ריוח – that he sold the first yesterday and the second today.
5.3.22
אין צריך להודיעו – for I say: “Yesterday, I slaughtered it first.” Another explanation: At the time when he doesn’t have space of time that he is in haste and hurries to purchase that shows that he wants to slaughter today. But if he has a space of time that he is not in haste to purchase it, he is not required to inform him, for lest it was for the need of another day that he purchases it. But Rabbi Yehuda, he comes to explain the matter of the first Tanna–teacher and not to dispute it.
5.3.23
ומודה ר' יהודה – even hough that he purchased this [animal] today and that [animal] on the morrow, And regarding the second explanation, even though he is not in haste and hurried to purchase.
5.3.24
את האם לחת ואת הבת לכלה – it is a usual incident, for it is the custom of the world to make a large meal at the house of the groom from the house of the bride; therefore, the mother fo the grow who is larger, and the offspring which is smaller to the bride.
5.4.1
משחיטין את האטבח בעל כרחו – if he received a Denar from the purchaser, he must give him a Denar’s worth of meat.
5.4.2
פילו שור שוה אלף זוז – he slaughters it against his will, even though he has no purchasers for the rest of the meat. For according ot the words of the Torah, money purchases, and from the time that the seller receives the Denar, the purchaser acquired the meat. But the Sages did not establish that taking possession by drawing towards one’s self the object to be acquired effects acquisition (see Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4, for example) and not money as a decree lest the seller say to the purchaser: “Your wheat burned in the attic [through a fire]”. For if they had established that produce would be the responsibility of the purchaser from when he gave the money, if a fire took place in the house of the seller where the produce is, and he did not take the trouble to save them, but after he has “pulled,” undefined, when it reaches his house [then the purchase takes full effect]. And in these four seasons of the year, the Sages preserved their words over the law of the Torah that money purchases.
5.4.3
לפיכך אם מת מת ללוקח – And he loses his Denar, for it died when it was in his domain–possession.
5.4.4
אינו כן – for we require “pulling” and all the while that he didn’t “pull,” the butcher can retract.
5.5.1
יום אחד האמור באותו ואת בנו כו' – because the portion of “the animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28) is adjacent to the sacrifice, and it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “[ad from the eighth day on] it shall be acceptable as a gift to [the LORD],” and adjacent to it, “the animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28). But with Holy Things, the night follows after the day, as it is written (Leviticus 7:15): “[And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being] shall be eaten on the day that it is offered; none of it shall be set aside until morning.” So we see that the night that is after it is called the “on the day...until morning.” It is possible that even this is the case [it is stated here, “one day”] and it is stated in the Creation story (Genesis 1:5): “[And there was evening and there was morning] the first day.”
6.1.1
כיסוי הדם כו' – because it was necessary to teach [in the Mishnah] with non-consecrated–profane things but not with sanctified–dedicated things, it took all of them.
6.1.2
במוקדשין – the sin-offering of fowl and the burnt-offering of fowl, and similarly things sanctified for the repair of the Temple, if he transgressed and slaughtered them, they do not require covering [of the blood].
6.1.3
ונוהג בחיה ובעוף – to exclude cattle as you would not say that the cattle is included among wildlife, and we derive it from what it is written regarding a firstborn having a blemish (Deuteronomy 15:23): “ [Only you must not partake of its blood;] you shall pour it out on the ground like water.” Just as water does not require covering, even the blood of cattle do not require covering.
6.1.4
במזומן – fowl that grows in the house.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.